0
Research Papers

Is Architectural Pedagogy Prepared for Buildings of the Future? OPEN ACCESS

[+] Author and Article Information
Timothy L. Hemsath

Associate Professor
College of Architecture,
University of Nebraska–Lincoln,
245 Arch Hall,
Lincoln, NE 68588
e-mail: Themsath3@unl.edu

Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING: INCLUDING WIND ENERGY AND BUILDING ENERGY CONSERVATION. Manuscript received April 30, 2016; final manuscript received October 10, 2016; published online November 10, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Patrick E. Phelan.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 139(1), 011003 (Nov 10, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: SOL-16-1198; doi: 10.1115/1.4034981 History: Received April 30, 2016; Revised October 10, 2016

Assuming that buildings in our near future can achieve carbon neutrality, what next? More importantly, what is necessary in the short term to transform the way we design and think about buildings to achieve carbon neutrality and beyond? Can architectural pedagogy deal with how buildings integrate with the larger community and ecosystem around them, how buildings are constructed and/or manufactured to optimize resource use, and how they adapt to changes and are repurposed to meet future needs? Pedagogy for this future is about instilling a way of thinking about environmental design that is both conscious of and active in energy and carbon emissions, but also the health, wellbeing, and productivity of building occupants. Expounding on these questions, this paper will analyze current architectural curriculum and recent student design competitions against the U.S. Department of Energy’s Future of Buildings initiative. The discussion of the gap analysis results shows a deficiency about thinking about architectural design for the future. The paper will highlight where our design education succeeds and falls short toward preparing students. Additionally, thinking about this future context will highlight beneficial and detrimental aspects of the current pedagogical landscape to further whole-building design concepts to achieve a carbon neutral future for the built environment.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>

Officially, the Future of Buildings (FoB) is in an initiative by the U.S. Department of Energy and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory under the guidance of Nora Wang and Patrick Phelan who, “…developed a vision for future buildings a century from now. Established with the collective views of our forward-thinking stakeholders, the framework will help guide the evolution of the U.S. building stock” [1]. The purpose of the paper’s methodology is to utilize this vision to vet architectural pedagogy.

Formulation of the FoB vision operates within the context of environmental issues and resource availability. Additionally, the knowledge of cutting-edge technologies and trends, incorporating innovative building design and planning strategies, and utilizing occupants needs and markets all shape the characteristics and performance goals of the initiative [2]. This vision and the resulting characteristics posit “buildings will no longer be passive objects that consume resources, but rather active participants engaged in the energy system and our community” [3].

Outcomes under preparation are different characteristics within the domains of environment (E), utilities and infrastructure (U), community (C), occupants (O), and building components and systems (B) elaborated on in the “Methodology” section. These areas challenge conventional knowledge, skills, and theory of architecture, the purview of the academic institutions that prepare the architects who design the buildings composing our environment.

Considering the Future of Buildings (FoB) initiative developed by the U.S. Department of Energy and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and their vision for future buildings a century from now, questions arise regarding the necessary skills, competence, and understanding required for architects to design in this future. Immediate knowledge requirements come from those expected within the current profession, embodied in the National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) requirements. NAAB oversees the accreditation of U.S. academic architecture programs, outlining the minimal educational criteria necessary for an architect’s education. NAAB evaluates these criteria against the work students produce when it grants accreditation to the architecture degree programs offered by institutions of higher education. With an NAAB-accredited degree, work experience specified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and successful completion of the Architectural Registration Exam (ARE), students may become registered architects. However, considering both the current pathway for gaining architectural licensure and the future demands of the profession begs the question, is architectural pedagogy prepared?

The Boyer report [4] produced in 1995 offers an in-depth overview of architectural education and the issues faced at the time. The authors discuss the origins of architectural education in the U.S., along with its evolution and history and the attitudes and perceptions of students, faculty, and members of other professions on the value of an architectural education. Overall, the report identifies the unique nature of an architectural education based on a studio environment focusing on the creative endeavors of design and those courses prioritizing historical, professional, and technical necessity. The report concludes with the benefits an architectural education provides in dealing with the complexity of design problems.

The studio-based learning is the common pedagogy for architectural education. The majority of credit hours earned toward an accredited architecture degree focus on the architectural design studio. The scholarly foundation for this type of learning comes from Schön [5,6], who identified that learning in design studio begins with ill-defined problems and a general characteristic of professional education, and observed that learning in the studio occurs through a process he called “reflection-in-action,” while suggesting that the studio-teaching method could be generalized to all professional education. The unique aspect of the studio-based experience is the one-on-one learning that occurs between the teacher and student [7], which is common throughout architectural education. Alongside the studio environment are other support courses required, such as representation, history/theory, structures, environmental systems, technology, and professional practice. Each degree program is slightly different in the delivery of these courses, but each one must meet the requirements of the NAAB accrediting body. The following section highlights the methodology followed by the results, discussion, and conclusion.

Following the logic provided from gap analyses of academic programs in engineering [8] and similar to Ref. [9], the author frames this study as a gap analysis of architectural pedagogy and student design competitions with regard to their capacities in meeting the challenges emerging from the Future of Buildings (FoB) initiative.

In order to evaluate the limitations of the current architectural pedagogy and identify the gaps, we consider the viewpoints of those embodied in the accreditation documents from nine architectural institutions and review five student design competitions, and then compare these against the objectives identified within the FoB. As a method to investigate overlaps and gaps to identify preparedness and deficiencies within the architectural pedagogy, a word search and count was completed using the FoB domains from Table 1 within the NAAB and student design competitions. The results are mapped in Fig. 1 identifying the frequency of occurrences with the 2009 NAAB and design competitions to those of the FoB. The end goal is to analyze these models in order to examine how well they prepare students for the FoB.

In the “Future of Buildings Review” section, the FoB characteristics are broken down into key terms to simplify their core elements, enabling comparisons with the academic data. Following this is the methodology for curricular comparison based on the NAAB accreditation framework and an overview of student design competitions to help determine whether these minimal requirements and design pursuits prepare architecture students for the FoB. Finally, the gap analysis methodology is outlined, and the “Results of Pedagogical Comparison” section compares the FoB, NAAB, and design competitions, leading to the discussion of what works and what is absent from the FoB for the architectural pedagogy.

Future of Buildings Review.

The FoB initiative spells out different characteristics within the areas of environment (E), utilities and infrastructure (U), community (C), occupants (O), and building components and systems (B), from which Table 2 below identifies some necessary knowledge domains derived from the concluding workshop handout [10]. Within these domains are 15 characteristics that speculate on scenarios and trends moving into an unknown future.

Unpacking the FoB reveals 15 goals and associated descriptions, for which the author identifies key themes (Table 2). Each general theme follows the characteristic title to suggest specific knowledge domains required to meet the definition of the characteristic identified. For example, the description of utilities and infrastructure item U1, “decentralized utility infrastructure,” reads, “Future buildings will not rely on a totally centralized utility infrastructure (power, water, and waste), but a more decentralized network for generation, distribution, storage, and treatment. Decentralized networks will improve the overall flexibility, efficiency, and resilience of the infrastructure system.”

Within the descriptions, the author identifies the key terms based on the definition of the utility infrastructure “power, water, and waste.” The purpose of a decentralized system is for “generation, distribution, storage, and treatment,” and the knowledge of a utility infrastructure depends on the type of power, water, waste, and purpose, whether it is for generation, distribution, storage, or treatment. These terms are key to understanding utility infrastructure and forming the selected key terminology. The key terms are therefore a prerequisite to greater understanding of the specific characteristic. Without the specific key terms, the thematic definition of the characteristic would not work [11]. Expanding each FoB characteristic in a similar manner produces 62 knowledge domains.

Unpacking and summarizing the FoB characteristics make it possible to identify potential patterns or commonalities. In a highly dense text, the summarization categorizes these into five domains: buildings, social, political, ecological, and economic, deemed by some as measures of sustainability related to human activity [12]. While FoB does not explicitly use sustainability terminology, many of the characteristics relate to common themes found in literature about sustainability [13,14] in architectural education.

Architectural Pedagogy.

This section evaluates the architectural pedagogy in order to compare these two datasets to the FoB characteristics in the gap analysis. First is sorting, evaluations of NAAB criteria and accredited degrees, to demonstrate how curricula reflect the minimal standard imposed by accreditation. The second forms an overview of student design competitions selected due to their focus on sustainability. Following this pedagogical overview are comparisons of both datasets to the FoB characteristics.

NAAB Curriculum.

Typical domains of the architectural pedagogy specified by NAAB [15] and summarized by the author in Table 2 below are found in all accredited architecture programs and schools.

Recently accredited schools were evaluated using the NAAB 2009 criteria, where those scheduled for accreditation beginning in 2016 are under the 2014 criteria. The data collected from the accredited school use 2009 criteria, and this will be the basis of comparison for the gap analysis. The NAAB criteria are organized within three realms that derive the letter designators used in Table 2.

  • realm A—critical thinking and representation: architectural design studio, visualization, drawing, representation, computation, history, and theory.

  • realm B—integrated building practices, technical skills, and knowledge: comprehensive design, sustainability, technological, structural, environmental, materials, assemblies, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and systems.

  • realm C—leadership and practice: collaboration, human behavior, community and social responsibility, professional practice, and electives.

The NAAB accredits architecture degrees offered by schools or programs by evaluating the performance of student work against a set of fixed criteria covering a range of competencies that include critical thinking and representation, building practices, technical skills and knowledge, integrated architectural solutions, and professional practice.

To demonstrate this competence is a review of the accredited architecture curricula from nine architecture programs, selected because of their rankings in the best architecture schools list assembled by the Design Intelligence report [16]. A total of ten colleges were identified for the initial search. Searches completed via Google and using the program, school, and departmental websites for NAAB reports on accreditation (called the architecture program report (APR)) and curricular plans for the accredited degrees.

Sorting the curricular plans provided for NAAB and the accredited degree allows comparison to topical areas common within each school program of study. Within the APRs provided by each architecture program are the topical areas of the curricula listing of the NAAB 2009 areas of accreditation. Organization of the courses used their specific course titles and topical areas identified within the NAAB matrix provided in each school’s APR report (if obtained in the search).

Some issues encountered during the search were that not all schools provided the prepared APR on their website; this report is for the NAAB accreditation visit and outlines how the school met the requirements for accreditation. Several schools had neither the APR nor the visiting team’s final report for the accreditation visit for review; therefore, they were eliminated from the final list of nine schools where APR reports could be found through the online search.

The courses listed come from the criteria within the three realms outlined by NAAB, summarily simplified as design studio, technology, history, and professional practice. The courses identified are not all the classes offered by the programs, departments, or schools as part of the student’s education, but merely those courses that schools identify as meeting the minimal NAAB requirements found in the APR. For an accurate comparison, since the number of credits varies per school, the total credit hours are presented in Table 3 as percentages of the total degree credit hours.

The results help understand the areas that NAAB addressed within the program’s architectural pedagogy across different schools. Additionally, the data support the literature from the introduction about the primacy of studio-based learning in architectural education.

Student Design Competitions.

Another possible measure of an architecture student’s ability to design for the FoB is student design competitions. Design competitions bring together students from across different institutions to complete for awards and recognition both nationally and internationally, and by competing in this manner students are forced outside of their specific institutions and internal program pedagogies, therefore providing an externalization of their abilities and design competence.

Competitions require students to design to rigorous standards if they wish to be competitive. These specific competitions force abductive reasoning as students speculate about design methods for a more resource-scarce world. The five competitions, along with their sponsoring organizations, are as follows:

  • AIA eCOTE Student Design Competition—ACSA/AIA

  • Race to Zero—U.S. DOE

  • Solar Decathlon—U.S. DOE

  • Architecture at Zero—PG&E

  • PerFORM—Hammer and Hand

The basis of choosing these competitions was their focus on performance and the weight environmental issues carry in their judging criteria. A summary of each competition is below and followed by a comparison of their judging criteria [17,18].

AIA COTE Student Design Competition.

As architecture students move into the profession, this competition frames the idea that they enter into a rapidly changing world. Preparing students for this dynamic future calls for greater integration of ecological design thinking within the design discourse of universities across the country. The program challenges students at ACSA member schools—working individually or in teams—to submit projects that use a thoroughly integrated approach to architecture, natural systems, and technology to provide architectural solutions that protect and enhance the environment. The competition recognizes studio projects that seamlessly integrate innovative, regenerative strategies within their broader design concepts. The most recent results are online at the AIA COTE Top Ten for Students website [19].

Race to Zero.

The focus of this competition assumes that Zero Energy-Ready Homes (ZERH) are readily achievable and cost-effective. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Race to Zero Student Design Competition (referred to more simply as Race to Zero) seeks to inspire college students to become the next generation of building science professionals through a design challenge for zero energy-ready homes. The competition is open to any student enrolled at a university.

Solar Decathlon.

The U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon challenges collegiate teams to design, build, and operate solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy efficient, and attractive. The winner of the competition is the team that best blends affordability, consumer appeal, and design excellence with optimal energy production and maximum efficiency. Unlike the other competitions listed, this one requires the construction and operation of the design. It is an ambitious and well-known national competition that requires financing and great effort for success.

Architecture at Zero.

The Architecture at Zero competition was conceived as a response to the zero net-energy targets set out by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) in the 2008 report, California’s Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. In this report, the CPUC, as part of its “Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies,” set the requirement for all new residential construction in California to be zero net-energy by 2020 and for all new commercial construction to be zero net-energy by 2030. The competition is sponsored by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) as part of its program activities dedicated to furthering the knowledge building and practice of zero net-energy building in California. The Architecture at Zero competition seeks creative and feasible approaches to zero net-energy building, with the design solutions posed relating to site-specific design challenges in California, and thus helping the competition to broaden thinking about the technical and esthetic possibilities of zero net-energy projects. Further, the competition seeks to raise the profile of zero net-energy among built-environment professionals, students, and the general public in California and beyond [17].

PerFORM.

This competition challenges architectural students and interns to explore the nexus between high-design and high-performance building for a net zero-energy project in Seattle’s diverse Rainier Beach community. Hammer and Hand, a builder that partners with architecture firms on every project it builds, launched the annual perFORM competition in 2013 to advance the energy performance training of emerging design professionals and demonstrate that high-performance building and high design can be inherently complementary [18].

The list in Table 4 shows a diversity of criteria and eligibility requirements within these competitions. All of the competitions explicitly state their intent to aid in transforming architectural design and thinking. The first two, however, are the most relevant to our discussion, as they provide clear judging criteria and descriptions to compare to the FoB characteristics, whereas the others lack clear definitions of the criteria for comparison and were discarded.

The Solar Decathlon is an incredibly complex and highly competitive competition; therefore, it is largely inaccessible to many universities due to the financial requirements necessary for competing. The final two competitions also have little specificity for comparison due to their limited expectations beyond general zero-energy requirements. In addition, their choice to focus on specific sites on the west coast and inclusion of out-of-school professionals limits their relevance when compared to the current architectural pedagogy.

Gap Analysis.

To expand upon the connections that may or may not exist within the FoB to NAAB and student design competitions, a gap analysis will identify the pedagogical gaps. Similar to research studies utilizing ATLAS/ti [20], the approach utilized here ran text searches based upon the FoB domains in Table 2. Utilizing the key themes are words identified, the research completed word searches of the descriptions of the NAAB criteria from Table 3 and the student design competitions in Table 5. When the specific text from the FoB was found in the descriptions, the associated criteria were noted. To build a count of the number of occurrences within the same criteria or text, a notation follows the criteria in parentheses identifying the number of times the criteria or word made a connection to the search. The totals then from the words searched and the criteria identified match. All words are listed as are all criteria found in the search in Table 6 whether found or not within the search. Only the criteria found are identified, and if more than one occurrence was found, the total number is noted in the following parentheses.

Following the identification of the associations between the FoB, NAAB, and design competitions, Table 7 graphically documents this in a line graph. The gaps will exist where the line graph shows associations below their median value with the FoB characteristics. The NAAB and design competition criteria, which have no association with FoB from the search, are identified with a zero in Table 6.

The following Table 6 and Fig. 1 demonstrate the results of the word search and connections between the three areas of comparison, FoB, NAAB, and student design competitions abbreviated as COTE and RTZ.

Therefore, from this analysis, the gaps are those FoB characteristics where there is not an association with NAAB or the design competitions described in Fig. 1. The median value for each of the three items identified is two; therefore, major gaps are those that fall below this mark. Identified with a mark in Table 6 are the gaps related to the FoB characteristics based on the data analyzed above.

In assessing the adequacy of an architectural pedagogy to fulfill the demand of the FoB, there are some deficiencies, however. Additionally, there are NAAB criteria that address FoB issues that also appear across many of the competitions. Well covered by NAAB are those related to the built environment, specifically covered in realm B of the NAAB criteria.

The FoB characteristics covered at least twice by NAAB and the design competitions.

  • E1-2: onsite ecological functions; natural systems and site design.

  • B1: modular, durable building components adapting to changes.

  • O1: personalized interior environment.

Next are those FoB domains marginally addressed by NAAB in the architectural pedagogy, largely those dealing with environmental issues, such as natural systems, ecology, infrastructure, and civil infrastructure.

The FoB domains not covered as identified in gap analysis.

  • E3: tracking real-time impacts and receiving feedback.

  • U1-2: centralized and decentralized utility infrastructure and resource/service transactions between buildings and districts.

  • C1-3: multifunctional and diverse services to support community cohesion.

  • B3: programmable and interoperable building components.

Many of the design competition judging criteria may not relate to NAAB, but are implicit throughout the architectural courses student complete to prepare their work for submission to the competitions. Examples of this are courses in building systems and performance related to environmental design deal with building science and may touch on energy issues. Cost estimation and financial analysis often find themselves as part of professional practice courses or construction courses. While these courses represent a possibility for students, they are not explicit courses in the accredited degrees evaluated. However, several of the competitions require demonstration of financial, constructability, building systems, and performance integration. These are also found in the FoB characteristics related to how buildings operate and behave.

NAAB Adequacy.

Within the NAAB competencies, nearly 50% of the criteria aligning with FoB fall within realm B. This realm deals most with constructability, building design with well-integrated systems, and principles of environmental stewardship. Following this is realms A and C; the latter deals with the comprehension of research in design, evaluating options and reconciling the implications of design decisions across systems and scales, synthesizing variables from diverse and complex systems into an integrated architectural solution, and responding to environmental stewardship goals across multiple systems to create an integrated solution. These realms align with several of the Future of Buildings criteria.

The review of the accredited-degree NAAB criteria compared to the FoB characteristics suggests that minimal NAAB competencies are more adequate to address the FoB than the student design competitions. The gap analysis in Fig. 1 shows that NAAB has fewer deficiencies, but is not fully adequate either only matching less than half, seven out of the fifteen, of the FoB characteristics.

Careful examination of the FoB characteristics shows that each individual item is not isolated to one domain, but crosses multiple domains. Take, for example, the multimodal transportation U2; the description highlights not only the types of transportation but also their interconnectivity to land use patterns, values, and human behaviors and health associated with the diverse transportation options. Therefore, simply understanding the transportation is likely not sufficient for understanding the role transportation plays within urban systems.

In all fairness, in the update to the 2009 NAAB criteria, the 2014 NAAB criteria B.2 site design does address the “ability to respond to site characteristics, including urban context and developmental patterning.” Nothing beyond this minimal expectation, however, is required or explicitly demonstrable by the architectural curricula reviewed. Transportation is a necessary part of any city; however, the NAAB criteria might pass without students understanding transportation. Again, this supports the first claim that NAAB is insufficient to capture the cross-domain complexity systems within the FoB characteristics discussed.

Those NAAB criteria not connected to the FoB characteristics were either unrelated, too broad, or too specific to be applicable to the FoB. This does not suggest that there could not be connections made or that there are not, but are only that those identified with the methodology. The limitation of this methodology is that it relies upon the NAAB descriptions of the criteria. How architecture programs teach and deliver the content comes from their interpretation of the criteria.

Design Competitions.

Next, there is a degree of preparedness for the FoB within the architectural pedagogy as demonstrated within the design competitions reviewed. While the analysis method identified more gaps within the design competitions than in the NAAB criteria, it needs to be considered that the 2009 NAAB has 32 criteria, whereas the two competitions had ten each to compare. Therefore, the numerical deficiency is actually less when comparing the NAAB as a percentage (52%) to the two competitions (48%) of the total. Therefore, the two competitions constitute 48% of the total connections to the FoB characteristics.

Even with these gaps demonstrated in the analysis, there are solid relationships between the natural environment and building function, fulfilling the FoB characteristics E1 and B1. The nature of the AIA COTE-focused competition foregrounded the E1 requirements.

Regarding the Race to Zero, the technical nature of the zero energy-ready home was specific to residential design and the full completion of a constructible house. As a result, the students’ work only fulfilled the FoB E1, O1, B1, and B2, with less attention on criteria dealing with community, local and regional, and utility connectivity. The competition has tightly focused judging criteria and deliverables constraining design results into a narrow field.

Limitations, Gaps, and Beyond Architecture.

This article compared the aspects of these competitions and NAAB criteria with the FoB characteristics; however, not all of the competition rubrics or NAAB itself fully capture the totality of the architectural pedagogy. One limitation is in the construction of the design competitions themselves. This is most notable in criticisms of the Solar Decathlon competitions, where “there is an inherent dichotomy that nearly everyone competing in the event is aware of: although the intent of the competition is to showcase sustainable design, the contests clearly favor technological solutions” [21]. Similarly, the Race to Zero due to the equitable distribution of the rubric by treating all contests the same prioritizes technological issues above those of design. Any architecture professor will also protest the suggestion that IAQ and appliances are equal in their effect on the effort and quality of the architectural design—there is a specific disciplinary mastery required in design different from providing air quality and appliances. Second limitation is upon NAAB, and their methods receive critiques [22] as to their role in standardizing the architectural pedagogy; additionally, the studio model is continually debated [23,24]. Though there may be no ideal pedagogy, the purpose is not to analyze these teaching models for what they are, but to examine how well they prepare students for the FoB.

Beyond the nature of NAAB, design competitions, and the current course curriculum, there is a gap leading into a few of the complex issues associated with FoB-specific criteria. From Table 6, there are limited connections to FoB criteria E3, U1-3, C1-3, and B3.

The first gap lies in the ecological functions and natural systems related to building design (FoB E3). None of the NAAB criteria truly address this issue, and site design (B4) has potential if schools choose to interpret and apply it accordingly, but would questionable when related to the rigor required within the FoB. As FoB E3 describes, the concern is with real-time monitoring, tracking of, and feedback from the environmental issues. There is great technological and scientific knowhow to achieve real-time ecological monitoring.

Second, the issue of building integration into different modes of ownership rights, utilities, operations, and civil infrastructure is another pedagogical hole, primarily strike the surrounding utilities and infrastructure characteristics (FoB C3, U1, U2, and U3). The practice and pedagogy of architecture often deals with clear clients, owners, and individually performing buildings. Once these boundaries blur the sharing of resources and ownership beyond a building’s specific footprint, raise issues of design to address these complexities. Few architectural courses, however, may address such complexities of ownership, or the complexities of civil and utility infrastructures.

Third, the increase in sensors, controls, operations, and complexities in human behavior overlays more systems to integrate into the building design. However, the building design techniques and layout to accommodate these systems are lacking in many curricula (FoB B3).

Finally, noticeable across the three gaps are within the word search results. From the list developed out of the FoB characteristics, those criteria using words such as multi, linked, connected, adaptable, measurable, tracked, interconnected, extensibility, modular, and seamless identify terms with no identified associations. The exact reason is not quantifiable, but an opinion is that these terms represent a different way of thinking about the built environment as discussed by Khan et al. [14] that is more pluralistic and not a one-size-fits all approach.

To comment on this critique, is it necessary for the architectural pedagogy to be responsible for all the FoB characteristics? Suggesting that architecture alone is adequate to address all social, environmental, and economic issues is not reasonable; therefore, interdisciplinary expertise from a variety of domains is necessary. There are areas of the FoB that fall outside of the typical architectural discipline and domain; these areas crossover into engineering, civil engineering, public policy, business, economics, social, law, and environmental science. Additionally, integrating buildings and ecosystems suggests the need for a more diverse team composition that includes environmental and climate scientists, social and human behavior experts, public health experts, anthropologists, and others. This recognition that a project must meet operational performance goals for its lifespan requires alternative team and contractual structures for its integrative design expectations. Today, many professional contracts and available expertise does not fit this new project delivery method or long-term performance goals.

Examples do exist within curricula from the NAAB-accredited schools that exceed the minimal expectations and offer multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary opportunities to collaborate and deal with ill-defined problems inherent throughout the FoB characteristics. One known example is Portland State’s Center for Urban Studies [25], which engages communities in issues of planning and the built environment dealing with the multidisciplinary issues of urban planning and design.

The issue is that NAAB does not address the learning necessary for the multidimensional, interdisciplinary, and complex issues faced by the architectural pedagogy to prepare students for the Future of Buildings. The competition sponsors and scholars [26], however, recognize these issues in the foundation of their student design competitions. Colleges, schools, and programs of architecture also recognize this changing landscape through their collaborations and research, such as the University of Minnesota’s Center for Sustainable Building Research [27]. Such strides, internal and external to architectural pedagogy, do demonstrate positive changes to prepare students for the future.

In conclusion, is the architectural pedagogy prepared for the Future of Buildings? Yes and no. How can we as educators and institutions of higher education prepare anyone for the unknown? However, we can remain relevant and projective in the delivery of our curricula to prepare skilled, critical, and integrative design thinkers and competent leaders. It is crucial architectural pedagogy advances and maintains pace with the evolving advances of the FoB characteristics. Regardless of the minimally adequate and myopic NAAB criteria, the design competitions demonstrate that architectural students can perform admirably and design buildings suited for some of the FoB characteristics. To advance the architectural pedagogy further requires individual institutions to provide studio-based educational experiences beyond those of accreditation, specifically embracing the pluralistic and interconnectedness of sustainability as discussed by Khan et al. [14] and identified as a key gap in this research. Doing so prepares the architectural pedagogy for the Future of Buildings.

Wang, N. , Phelan, P. , Gonzalez, J. , Harris, C. , Henze, G. , Hutchinson, R. , Langevin, J. , Lazarus, M. A. , Nelson, B. , Pyke, C. , Roth, K. , Rouse, D. , Sawyer, K. , and Selkowitz, S. , 2014, “ A Vision for Future Buildings Beyond Zero Energy and Carbon Neutrality,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Building Technologies Office, 2014, “ Buildings of the Future Scoping Study,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Building Technologies Office, 2015, “ Future of Buildings Fact Sheet,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Boyer, E. L. , and Mitgang, L. D. , 1996, Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Schön, D. A. , 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.
Schön, D. A. , 1985, The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials, RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Trust, London.
Ochsner, J. K. , 2000, “ Behind the Mask: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interaction in the Design Studio,” J. Archit. Educ., 53(4), pp. 194–206. [CrossRef]
Ramadi, E. , Ramadi, S. , and Nasr, K. , 2016, “ Engineering Graduates’ Skill Sets in the MENA Region: A Gap Analysis of Industry Expectations and Satisfaction,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 41(1), pp. 34–52. [CrossRef]
Mineraud, J. , Mazhelis, O. , Su, X. , and Tarkoma, S. , 2016, “ A Gap Analysis of Internet-of-Things Platforms,” Comp. Commun., 89–90, pp. 5–16. [CrossRef]
Wang, N. , 2015, “ Future of Buildings Concluding Workshop: Draft Vision (July 29),” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Ryan, G. , and Bernard, H. R. , 2003, “ Techniques to Identify Themes,” Field Methods, 15(1), pp. 85–109. [CrossRef]
Steward, C. , and Kuska, S. , 2011, Sustainometrics, Greenway Communications, Norcross, GA.
Guy, S. , and Farmer, G. , 2001, “ Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology,” J. Archit. Educ., 54(3), pp. 140–148. [CrossRef]
Khan, A. Z. , Vandevyvere, H. , and Allacker, K. , 2013, “ Design for the Ecological Age: Rethinking the Role of Sustainability in Architectural Education,” J. Archit. Educ., 67(2), pp. 175–185. [CrossRef]
NAAB, 2009, “ NAAB Conditions for Accreditation,” National Architectural Accrediting Board, Washington, DC.
Design Futures Council, 2016, “ America’s Best Architecture & Design Schools 2016,” Design Intelligence, Norcross, GA, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://www.di.net/articles/americas-best-architecture-schools-2016/
AIACC, 2016, “ Architecture at Zero,” American Institute of Architects, California Council, Sacramento, CA, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://www.architectureatzero.com/
Hammer and Hand, 2016, “ perFORM 2016 Competition,” Hammer and Hand, Portland, OR, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://hammerandhand.com/perform/design-competition/
ACSA, 2015, “ 2015–2016 AIA COTE Top Ten for Students,” Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Washington, DC, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://www.acsa-arch.org/programs-events/competitions/2015-2016-cote-top-ten-for-students/2015-2016-cote-top-ten-for-students-winners
Muhr, T. , 1991, “ ATLAS/ti—A Prototype for the Support of Text Interpretation,” Qual. Sociol., 14(4), pp. 349–371. [CrossRef]
Zaretsky, M. , 2010, Precedents in Zero-Energy Design: Architecture and Passive Design in the 2007 Solar Decathlon, Routledge, New York.
Jarzombek, M. , 2009, “ Architecture: A Failed Discipline,” Architecture of Hope, Vol. 19, Stichting Archis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 42–46.
Neveu, M. , 2009, “ Studia | Studio,” ACSA Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, Mar. 26–29, pp. 21–26.
Gamble, M. E. , Dagenhart, R. , and Jarrett, C. , 2002, “ Rethinking Studio Pedagogy: Teaching Introductory Architectural Design at the Graduate Level,” 18th National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Portland, OR, Mar. 14–16, Paper No. 30.
PSU, 2016, “ Center for Urban Studies,” Portland State University, Portland, OR, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, https://www.pdx.edu/cus/
Whitehead, R. , Paxson, L. , and Rogers, C. A. , 2010, “ Places, Spaces, and Faces: Teaching Sustainable Design Through Cross-Disciplinary Studio Integration,” ACSA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Mar. 4–7, Paper No. 15.
CSBR, 2016, “ College of Design, Center for Sustainable Building Research,” The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://www.csbr.umn.edu/
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Topics: Structures , Design , Students
View article in PDF format.

References

Wang, N. , Phelan, P. , Gonzalez, J. , Harris, C. , Henze, G. , Hutchinson, R. , Langevin, J. , Lazarus, M. A. , Nelson, B. , Pyke, C. , Roth, K. , Rouse, D. , Sawyer, K. , and Selkowitz, S. , 2014, “ A Vision for Future Buildings Beyond Zero Energy and Carbon Neutrality,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Building Technologies Office, 2014, “ Buildings of the Future Scoping Study,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Building Technologies Office, 2015, “ Future of Buildings Fact Sheet,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Boyer, E. L. , and Mitgang, L. D. , 1996, Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Schön, D. A. , 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books, New York.
Schön, D. A. , 1985, The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials, RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Trust, London.
Ochsner, J. K. , 2000, “ Behind the Mask: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interaction in the Design Studio,” J. Archit. Educ., 53(4), pp. 194–206. [CrossRef]
Ramadi, E. , Ramadi, S. , and Nasr, K. , 2016, “ Engineering Graduates’ Skill Sets in the MENA Region: A Gap Analysis of Industry Expectations and Satisfaction,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., 41(1), pp. 34–52. [CrossRef]
Mineraud, J. , Mazhelis, O. , Su, X. , and Tarkoma, S. , 2016, “ A Gap Analysis of Internet-of-Things Platforms,” Comp. Commun., 89–90, pp. 5–16. [CrossRef]
Wang, N. , 2015, “ Future of Buildings Concluding Workshop: Draft Vision (July 29),” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Ryan, G. , and Bernard, H. R. , 2003, “ Techniques to Identify Themes,” Field Methods, 15(1), pp. 85–109. [CrossRef]
Steward, C. , and Kuska, S. , 2011, Sustainometrics, Greenway Communications, Norcross, GA.
Guy, S. , and Farmer, G. , 2001, “ Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology,” J. Archit. Educ., 54(3), pp. 140–148. [CrossRef]
Khan, A. Z. , Vandevyvere, H. , and Allacker, K. , 2013, “ Design for the Ecological Age: Rethinking the Role of Sustainability in Architectural Education,” J. Archit. Educ., 67(2), pp. 175–185. [CrossRef]
NAAB, 2009, “ NAAB Conditions for Accreditation,” National Architectural Accrediting Board, Washington, DC.
Design Futures Council, 2016, “ America’s Best Architecture & Design Schools 2016,” Design Intelligence, Norcross, GA, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://www.di.net/articles/americas-best-architecture-schools-2016/
AIACC, 2016, “ Architecture at Zero,” American Institute of Architects, California Council, Sacramento, CA, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://www.architectureatzero.com/
Hammer and Hand, 2016, “ perFORM 2016 Competition,” Hammer and Hand, Portland, OR, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://hammerandhand.com/perform/design-competition/
ACSA, 2015, “ 2015–2016 AIA COTE Top Ten for Students,” Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Washington, DC, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://www.acsa-arch.org/programs-events/competitions/2015-2016-cote-top-ten-for-students/2015-2016-cote-top-ten-for-students-winners
Muhr, T. , 1991, “ ATLAS/ti—A Prototype for the Support of Text Interpretation,” Qual. Sociol., 14(4), pp. 349–371. [CrossRef]
Zaretsky, M. , 2010, Precedents in Zero-Energy Design: Architecture and Passive Design in the 2007 Solar Decathlon, Routledge, New York.
Jarzombek, M. , 2009, “ Architecture: A Failed Discipline,” Architecture of Hope, Vol. 19, Stichting Archis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 42–46.
Neveu, M. , 2009, “ Studia | Studio,” ACSA Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, Mar. 26–29, pp. 21–26.
Gamble, M. E. , Dagenhart, R. , and Jarrett, C. , 2002, “ Rethinking Studio Pedagogy: Teaching Introductory Architectural Design at the Graduate Level,” 18th National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Portland, OR, Mar. 14–16, Paper No. 30.
PSU, 2016, “ Center for Urban Studies,” Portland State University, Portland, OR, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, https://www.pdx.edu/cus/
Whitehead, R. , Paxson, L. , and Rogers, C. A. , 2010, “ Places, Spaces, and Faces: Teaching Sustainable Design Through Cross-Disciplinary Studio Integration,” ACSA Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Mar. 4–7, Paper No. 15.
CSBR, 2016, “ College of Design, Center for Sustainable Building Research,” The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, accessed Apr. 30, 2016, http://www.csbr.umn.edu/

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Mapping of 2014 NAAB and design competition criteria to FoB characteristics. Median value (2) noted with a gray dashed line.

Tables

Table Grahic Jump Location
Table 1 Future of building characteristics and key terms summarized as knowledge domains
Table Grahic Jump Location
Table 2 Summary of 2009 NAAB criteria showing title followed by criteria number
Table Grahic Jump Location
Table 3 Percentage of course credit hour distribution within accredited degrees
Table Grahic Jump Location
Table 4 Summary of judging criteria and weight (if provided) for five design competitions
Table Grahic Jump Location
Table 5 Results of word search between the FoB domains, NAAB, and two design competitions
Table Grahic Jump Location
Table 6 Results of gap analysis identifying the FoB characteristics where NAAB, ACSA, and RTZ are deficient, marked with an “X”

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In